Saturday, August 11, 2012

Today GRAIN is making available a new data set documenting 416 recent,
large-scale land grabs by foreign investors for the production of food
crops. The cases cover nearly 35 million hectares of land in 66
countries.

This is not an exhaustive list of all land deals. It focuses only on those deals that:

were initiated after 2006,

have not been cancelled,

are led by foreign investors,

are for the production of food crops, and

involve large areas of land.

Deals for sugar cane and palm oil production were included but not those for crops like jatropha or cotton.

The collection of deals provides a stark snapshot of how agribusiness
has been rapidly expanding across the globe since the food and financial
crises of 2008 and how this is taking food production out of the hands
of farmers and local communities.

It confirms that Africa is the primary target of the land grabs, but it
also underlines the importance of Latin America, Asia and Eastern
Europe, demonstrating that this is a global phenomenon.

The data set also paints a clear picture of who the land grabbers are.
While most of the 298 land grabbers documented are from the agribusiness
sector, financial companies and sovereign wealth funds are responsible
for about a third of the deals. And on many occasions there is overlap.
For instance, the data set shows how Cargill, one of the world's largest
agribusiness companies, has been acquiring hundreds of thousands of
hectares of farmland through its hedge fund Black River Asset
Management.

European and Asian based investors account for about two thirds of the
land grabs within the data set. China and India are major sources of
land grabbers, as are the UK and Germany. But the UK, much like
Singapore and Mauritius, serves as a tax haven for land grabbers, and
often the true operating bases of the companies reside elsewhere. Other
major centres of land grabbers are the US, which tops the list at 41
cases, and the UAE and Saudi Arabia with 39 combined.

This table is based on data available to us, most of it collected from
the website farmlandgrab.org. It has not been verified against realities
on the ground. It is also a summary, and as such doesn't capture all
nuances and details. Sources are available on request.

The corn is from Monsanto seeds, which produce a plant
that exudes bt toxin, a pesticide that will kill insects that feed on
the plant. It's coming to Wal-Mart from farms in the Midwest, Northwest,
Southeast and Texas. It will be the first genetically modified food to
go directly from the farm to consumers - unlabled as GMO. Besides the
toxin people who east the corn will consume, there are other serious
farming issues with genetically modified crops outside the scope of this
article. But it should be noted that Whole Foods, Trader Joe's and
General Mills have vowed to not sell or use the genetically engineered.

Apparently, enough adults are informed and concerned
enough to raise a stink, so Monsanto is aiming at the next generation,
eyes always on the profit prize. How else to explain the absurd
disinformation of the Biotechnology Basic Activity Book it sponsors?.

No book should be banned. That's an axiom of this column.

Choices, however, are legitimate. As parents and
librarians, gift-giving grandparents, whatever, we eschew children's
books that are too scary for our little ones, we don't choose books that
seem stupid or unfunny, and, most importantly, we don't want books that
are a pack of lies.

It's proper, too, to shield tender young minds from
harsh realities - but when they're ready and we intend to inform them,
our job is to get real.

Monsanto thinks otherwise.

If you think a food additive that kills human kidney
cells improves our health, don't read any further, the GMO propaganda
machine has already fried your brains. The U.S. allows this stuff.
Corporations own our government. But the European Union, Japan,
Australia, Brazil, Russia and China, require labeling for GE foods.
(It's staggering to think that Russia and China are more concerned about
their citizens' health than the majority of our elected
representatives.)

One constantly wonders if any of these corporate
people or bought politicians have grandchildren, or even think about the
consequences of poisoning the food supply or the land in ways that will
harm them, their great-grandchildren, and generations beyond. Forget
it, they aren't that human.

Monsanto is likely the most evil multi-national
corporation ever. They make Phillip Morris and R.J. Reynolds getting
kids hooked on tobacco look absolutely benign; BP's malfeasance in the
Gulf oil spew minor, Ciby Geigy pushing Ritalin on kids and useless,
dangerous drugs to third world countries - fogeddaboutit. Maybe Dow ...
but Monsanto must take the prize.

These are the people that brought us polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), now banned worldwide; DDT, banned for most uses, and
Agent Orange, the defoliant than caused birth defects among generations
of Vietnamese and children of U.S. soldiers exposed to it..

These are the people who put bovine growth hormone in
our milk supply. Neither you nor I may say that makes our milk any
different or they will sue us. (Only why have other countries banned its
use?) And the cows, who suffer terribly, can't speak up for themselves.

These are the people who invented terminator seeds, so
farmers can't collect seeds from their plants, and replant with them,
They have to buy more seeds from Monsanto. What monster could think up a
terminator seed? (One envisions Arnold Swartzenegger with a machine gun
spewing seeds at recalcitrant planters.)

And when they aren't terminator seeds, Monsanto still
doesn't want plants produced from its seeds used to propagate a next
generation.

Health writer Anthony Gucciardi says Monsanto is to
blame for one farmer suicide every 30 minutes across a swath of India.
It happens like this:

Farmers pay exorbitantly higher prices to plant
genetically modified seeds that Monsanto promises will yield more. Often
they do not, and tremendously more water is needed to grow them anyway.
The crops do poorly, then Monsanto swoops in and charges a royalty on
the next batch, often to the farmers' financial ruin.

The practice of using renewal seeds dates back to
ancient times, but Monsanto seeks to collect royalties on what it says
is its patented "intellectual property" --the original seeds. Something
the Indian government calls an attempt to patent life.

If you don't want them at all, you still aren't safe.
When Monsanto's genetically modified seeds accidentally blow over and
contaminate a non-GMO farm, often an organic one, the corporation sues
the farmer for "using" the patented seeds they didn't want in the first
place! In a just world, Monsanto would owe reparations to the organic
farmer.

They're clever people, to be sure. Monsanto was the first to genetically modified a plant.cell (in 1982).

So here we are in 2012 facing Monsanto's unprecedented messing with Mother Nature - the genetically modified plant.

Based purely on anecdotal evidence, admittedly, I
believe most people think "genetically modified" simply means designing a
hardier tomato, lettuce or bean. A shinier apple, maybe. Would it were
just that! Nope, genetically modified means they are inserting a
pesticide in the genome of the plant. A killer we will all eat.

There is no way to wash it off. The pesticide is systemic - within the plant. Part of the plant. It IS the plant.

It may not affect human health, but it may. We don't
know. And Monsanto doesn't want anyone to have a choice in whether or
not they take the gamble. They are fighting GMO labeling requirements.

The main battleground right now is in California,
where labeling is on the November ballot. California is a big state, so
as California goes, so goes the nation, some say.

CALLING ALL CALIFORNIANS: Please vote for labeling!

In the meantime, worry about the bees, too. Beekeepers
and researchers say these systemic pesticides are apparently killing
off bee colonies at an alarming rate. Bees are needed to pollinate a
vast number of fruit and vegetable crops.

It is said that Albert Einstein once predicted that
mankind could survive the demise of the honeybee for only perhaps four
years.

Here's why more water is needed for bt toxin plants.
Portland State University researchers reported in April that the corn
aimed at insects also damages beneficial soil life. The roots of bt corn, they found a decrease in mycorrhizal fungi, which are important for nutrient and water uptake.

Imagine more water being needed to grow plants in a land like India, or drought ravaged world.

Is Monsanto a company you want speaking to your children or grandchildren?

The Biotechnology Basic Activity Book, produced by an
organization laughably called the Council for Biotechnology Information.
Its members are Monsanto and BASF, BAYER CropScience, Dow AgroSciences,
DuPont, and Syngenta.

The book can be examined on the council's website.
Judge for yourself which of these claims for genetically modified food
are true:

It help us grow more food.

It helps the environment.

It grows more nutritious food that improves our health.

Kids are given puzzles to "learn more about
biotechnology and all of the wonderful ways it can help people live
better lives in a healthier world.l"

Science writer Anthony Gucciardi writes:

"According to 900 scientists, GMO crops actually do
not grow more food than traditional farming practices. In fact, they are
simply not an effective tool to fight starvation in any capacity,
thanks to their excessive costs and immense failure to yield crops.
...(and) genetically modified seeds were outperformed by traditional
"agro-ecological" farming practices.

Do GMO's improve our health? "... Nothing could be
farther from the truth." Gucciardi writes. "A prominent review of 19
studies examining the safety of GMO crops found that consumption of GMO
corn or soybeans can lead to significant organ disruptions in rats and
mice - particularly in the liver and kidneys. . Monsanto’s modified
biopesticide, known as Bt, has been found to be killing human kidney
cells in conjunction with Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup.

"Roundup ready crops have also been linked to mental illness, obesity, infertility, and DNA damage."

Helping the environment? Gucciardi calls this the most
ludicrous claim of all. (Remember, this is what kids are reading in
this book and teachers are supposed to take as a guide in instructing
their pupils.)

"Research has shown that Monsanto’s modified Bt
pesticide is actually mutating the very genetic coding of insect life on
the planet, creating super resistant ‘mutant’ bugs that are wreaking
havoc on farms using Monsanto’s harmful concoctions across the globe. At
least eight populations of insects have developed some form of
resistance, with two populations resistant to Bt sprays and at least 6
species resistant to Bt crops as a whole.

"Perhaps most concerning is the mounting rootworm
resistance as a result of Monsanto’s GMO corn usage. A group of 22
academic corn experts recently petitioned the EPA over the extreme
danger presented by the crops... agricultural stability is
threatened...(due to) the mass amount of ‘superweeds’ currently
springing up around the globe as a result of Monsanto’s Roundup. These
resistant weeds currently cover over 4.5 million hectares in the United
States alone, though experts estimate the world-wide land coverage to
have reached at least 120 million hectares by 2010. The onset of
superweeds is being increasingly documented in Australia, Argentina,
Brazil, Chile, Europe and South Africa."

This biotech book represents a war for the minds of the next generation, Gucciardi says..

Surely it's not the only propaganda ever aimed at
children. But it does highlight the need for parents and librarians and
teachers to be super vigilant when corporations write books.

The answer is not to ban the book. Just don't buy it, literally and figuratively.

U.S. Drought Exposes “Hydro-Illogical” Water Management

Agriculture
Secretary Tom Vilsack tours Eric Cress' farm to examine crop damage
caused by the drought near Center Point, Iowa. Eric and his father Dale
said their farm in eastern Iowa is running around seven inches behind
normal rain levels for this time of year. Credit: USDA photo by Darin
Leach

NEW YORK, Aug 11 2012 (IPS) -
The historic drought withering much of the United States this summer
has revealed a need for strategies to better manage water supplies that
could remain under severe pressure both this year and in the longer
term.

On Friday, the U.S. Agriculture Department said that corn yields –
which account for nearly 40 percent of the global harvest – would be 17
percent lower than expected, contributing to an overall rise in food
prices of three to four percent next year.

Van Ayers, an agriculture and rural development specialist with the
University of Missouri Extension in Bloomfield, predicts a continued
expansion of irrigation systems.

“When I first moved to southeast Missouri over 20 years ago, there
were approximately 300,000 acres with irrigation,” he told IPS. “Now
there is over one million. This trend will not change.”

Related IPS Articles

The main problem this year is that farmers in southeast Missouri had
to irrigate more land than they expected, and some of the systems
failed.

“I don’t think anybody expected a drought this severe throughout the growing season,” said Ayers.

According to a July report
from the National Climatic Data Center, 33 percent of the country was
classified as experiencing a moderate to extreme drought and 55 percent
fell in the category of moderate to extreme. The high plains, the
midwest and the south are the areas most affected.

July 2012 was the hottest month on record for the U.S., with the
average temperature at 77.6 degrees F, 3.3 degrees above the 20th
century average.

On Aug. 2, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a
383-million-dollar emergency drought aid package for livestock producers
and farmers. The Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act
of 2012 will extend expired programmes such as the Emergency Livestock
Assistance Program to help farmers to deal with the current drought.

On Tuesday, President Barack Obama announced new measures to aid the drought-stricken areas. This additional funding would provide nearly 30 million dollars.

States are also taking action. In Missouri, Governor Jay Nixon
established an emergency cost-share programme to provide water for
farmers and livestock producers. Some 3,712 applications have been
approved, which equals 18.7 million dollars in assistance.

But emergency relief is just a bandaid on the much bigger problem of
changing climate patterns and extreme weather events that will continue
to impact water supplies for the foreseeable future, environmentalists
say.

Gerrit Jöbsis, southeast regional director of American Rivers,
calls it the “hydro-illogical cycle” – a “jargon to convey that we are
illogical in our approach to managing water supply shortages.”

The cycle consists of panicking when there is a drought, failing to
address the shortages with preventive measures for the future and then,
once it rains, returning to the previous mismanagement of supplies until
the next drought.

“This illogical approach is a cycle of ineffectiveness that we need to end,” Jöbsis told IPS.

He stressed the importance of distinguishing between water efficiency
and water conservation. While water efficiency focuses on reducing
waste, conservation restricts water use overall.

For the southeast region, American Rivers says water efficiency is the solution.

“In the southeast of the United States, we have a long history of
taking for granted the amount of water that we have,” Jöbsis said. But
in the last 40 years, cities have extended their boundaries and the
population has increased, putting added pressure on water supplies.

The metropolitan area of Atlanta, Georgia is dealing with precisely these challenges.

“We generally oppose the construction of more reservoirs for water
supply until communities have maximised their existing supplies through
water efficiency and other means first,” Ben Emanuel, southeast
associate director of water supply of American Rivers, told IPS.

The area has nearly four million residents and consumes 652 million
gallons of water per day. American Rivers estimates that through water
efficiency measures, Metro Atlanta would save 300 million to 700 million
dollars, and there would be no need to build new dams.

Ayers also believes that in the mid-south, another area hit by
drought, there is a need to efficiently manage the supply of water.
Ayers’ focus is primarily on irrigation, and “the efficient use of these
irrigation systems is paramount,” he told IPS.

But even in areas where the drought is not as severe, there is a need
to better manage water supplies. In Washington state, a clear example
of this is the Yakima basin.

Negotiations among stakeholders started back in 2009 and now
environmentalists, farmers, the Yakima native nation, and state and
federal governments have reached general agreement on an integrated plan.

Michael Garrity, conservation director of for Washington state from
American Rivers, told IPS: “Water conservation and efficiency are an
important part of the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan.”

But the plan also has other elements that need to be implemented in
order to meet its goals, such as better groundwater management and
renovation of existing dams.

The common thread in all these measures is simple, conservationists
say: you may not be able to predict a drought, but you can be prepared
when it comes.

How to keep the 2012 drought from draining your wallet

Drought is putting strain on food, water, energy, and the places where they intersect. (Photo by Shutterstock.)

What a difference a year makes. Last spring, farmers along the Mississippi River watched in horror as the Army Corps of Engineers blew up levees to let floodwaters run into their fields in order to protect downriver cities (check out this NASA video of
before and after LANDSAT photos). This year, farmers around the country
are watching helplessly as drought causes widespread crop damage. In
some places along the Mississippi River, water levels are 50 feet below
last year’s near record high levels. Unfortunately for a country already
struggling with a slow economy, damage caused by this drought is going
to be expensive and could affect many parts of our lives. Our food,
water, and energy systems are so intertwined that a crisis affecting any
one of those resources can throw the others seriously out of balance.
As of June 2012, more than half of the country was in various stages of drought (according to information from the weekly U.S. Drought Monitor Report) and more than one-third of the nation’s counties had been declared federal disaster areas. In July, we didn’t get much relief, so that number is rising. Food, water, and energy come together to form an important nexus. We’re experiencing that nexus firsthand, because the worst drought since 1956 will
likely produce significant impacts on food and fuel prices, and could
cause urban water supplies in some regions of the country to dry up —
with staggering consequences.
Here’s how food, water, and energy are being impacted by the 2012
drought, and some tips to help you minimize the impacts of these higher
prices on your budget.

The obvious impact is damage to crops, especially to corn and soy.
With no rain falling, crops are failing in places where crops are not
irrigated or where irrigation water is in short supply. Corn is
especially problematic because it’s in practically everything we
eat (we even put it into our gas tanks). Check out the labels on those
boxed, canned, and bottled products you might be buying at the grocery
store. The chances are they’re made with corn or soy. Also, if you eat
beef, poultry, pork, or even farmed fish, those animals were probably
given feed made up of corn or soy. Dairy products and eggs? Same thing.
Prices will likely be rising on meat and dairy products over the next
few months, and certainly by next year.
Processed foods and cereals are less likely to see the massive price
spikes because those foods are generally cheaper to produce (at least
they seem cheaper on the surface) but are generally much less nutritious than whole foods.This would be a good time to:

Consider using meat and dairy products as accents rather than the
main ingredients in your diet. Try changing to a diet based on fresh and whole (meaning less processed) foods like fruits and vegetables, the price of
which aren’t expected to be as significantly impacted by the drought
because they are generally irrigated and the water is highly regulated.

Diminishing corn supplies could also affect gasoline prices. There are mandates in place for the amount of ethanol that has to be included in gasoline, and American ethanol is
made primarily from — you guessed it — corn. In fact, 40 percent of
last year’s corn crop went toward making ethanol. In this time of
limited corn supplies, livestock producers aren’t happy with the
mandates or with having to compete for corn for their feed. The EPA could decide to lower the amount of ethanol required in gasoline, but that probably won’t happen until next year.This would be a good time to:

Electric power production can also be impacted when water supplies run low. Many power plants (those that use thermoelectric processes, anyway) rely on water for cooling purposes.
This is why many power plants are located next to water bodies. As the
drought continues, water levels in rivers and lakes will drop, impacting
power production in two ways. First, there is simply not as much water
available to use for cooling the steam produced from the plants’
processes. Also, once the steam has been cooled, the water used to cool
it has been heated up and it’s usually put back into the water body it
was initially taken out of. As water levels in rivers and lakes drop,
the water can warm up. If the water temperature gets high enough, state
regulations may prohibit plant operators from discharging cooling water
into the water body in order to protect fish and other aquatic life. Or,
the water temperature in the water body itself could get too warm for
the plant to use at all; as a result, the plant may have to cease
operation. Often this means that power plants have to stop producing
electricity, disrupting the stability of the electrical grid.This might be a good time to:

Consider switching to renewable power technologies that use very little water in their production processes.

Finally, the most obvious impact of the drought is that surface and groundwater supplies aren’t being replenished as they get used up for residential and other municipal purposes. Residential water use can double, triple, or even quadruple in
the summertime because of lawn watering, further straining water
supplies. If the drought continues, some communities will find
themselves making tough decisions about water allocation, including
restrictions on residential watering and even prohibitions on
agricultural irrigation.This would be a good time to:

By now, it should be clear how food, water, and energy systems rely
on and impact each other. Our infrastructure is connected and, while it
seems resilient, it often takes very little to put things out of
balance. Changing how we eat and use water and energy, when done
collectively, can make a big difference in the availability and,
ultimately, the sustainability of the natural resources we rely on
throughout our lives.

Robin Madel is a Research and Policy Analyst for the GRACE Water and Energy Programs. She has worked in the water and wastewater industry and helped close the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology.

EWG Joins California’s Fight To Label Genetically Engineered Food

Obama, Romney won't help: We have to claim this right for ourselves

Oakland, Calif. - August 10 - Californians deserve the right to
know whether their food contains genetically engineered ingredients,
just as consumers do in 40 other countries around the world, including
China. But the only way they’ll win that right is by voting yes on
Proposition 37 on November 6, and today Environmental Working Group, a
national research and advocacy organization, announced that it will join
the fight to pass the measure.Proposition 37,
a relatively straightforward proposal would require a simple label on
any food product that contains ingredients that have been genetically
modified, commonly called GMOs. More than 1 million Californians have
signed petitions to get the measure on the November ballot.
Until now, GMO foods – primarily soy, corn or beet sugar – have
mostly been used in processed food and animal feed, but the U.S.
Department of Agriculture is considering approving the sale of
genetically modified versions of widely eaten foods such as apples and
salmon. Currently, 90 percent of sugar beets and 94 percent of soybeans
grown in the U.S., and 88 percent of corn grown for animal feed, are
genetically modified.
“Surveys show that more than 90 percent of Californians believe it’s
their right to know if genetically engineered ingredients are in the
food they eat and feed their kids, and for years now they’ve had no way
to find out,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “Who will honor that right?
Certainly not the global pesticide companies that produce the
genetically engineered ingredients that ends up in our food, and
definitely not big multinational food companies. In this instance,
they’re saying the customer is not always right. In fact, Big Food has
already announced that defeating California’s Proposition 37 is their
top priority,” Cook said.
“I’m very sorry to say that President Obama has not acted to respect
this basic right either, despite promising to do so on the campaign
trail in 2008. A President Romney? Forget it. The current majority in
Congress certainly won’t recognize this right, and as for Sacramento…we
have our doubts,” added Cook, a California resident. “The only way
Californians will win the right to know about genetically modified
ingredients in our food is to claim it in the voting booth, and that’s
why EWG is in this fight.”
EWG has joined with a large and diverse coalition – including
environmental, public health, food safety and agricultural organizations
along with food producers, labor federations and Tea Party-affiliated
groups – that believe consumers have a right to know what is in their
food.
Cook and other EWG staff will be traveling throughout the state
speaking out in favor of Proposition 37 in the run-up to election day
and will be calling on the 150,000 EWG supporters in the state to join the fight and bring some friends.
“It is absolutely unacceptable to keep consumers in the dark,” said
EWG Senior Analyst Kari Hamerschlag in EWG’s Oakland office. “Passage of
Proposition 37 is essential for not only the people in California but
for all eaters across the country who’d like to know what’s in the food
they and their families eat.”
“The fact that in just a few months nearly a million people in
California signed a petition asking to put their right to know on the
ballot is a sign of the overwhelming public support for this issue in
the state,” Hamerschlag added.

###

The mission of the Environmental Working Group
(EWG) is to use the power of public information to protect public
health and the environment. EWG is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization,
founded in 1993 by Ken Cook and Richard Wiles.

Friday, August 10, 2012

New Groundwater Study Exposes Deep Folly of Fracking

Nothing shows the dangerous connection between drought and fracking more than the study released by the journal Nature
this week, which shows groundwater demand is exceeding supply,
particularly in agricultural zones. Not only is the oil and gas industry
turning our rural areas into sacrifice zones, it is also diverting
water that is needed to grow food.

Drilling and fracking is not only a threat to water quality — it also
uses massive amounts of water, removing much of the water used from the
water cycle altogether.

Unbelievably, even during horrendous drought conditions, oil and gas
companies are able to continue using our freshwater resources while
communities pay for pricy technologies like water reclamation plants, as
we see in Big Spring, Texas. And in Colorado, farmers are competing
with the oil and gas industry, who are driving up prices at water
auctions.

Fracking is not only a problem for consumers and farmers in the
United States. France and Bulgaria have banned fracking thanks to the
risks to water and agricultural areas. More communities, from South
Africa to Australia, are fighting it as well. On September 22, these
communities will join together for a global day of action to tell
decision makers around the world that fracking should be banned. We
can’t sacrifice our public health, our environment and communities, and
there is no replacement for our diminishing water resources.

Wenonah Hauter is the executive director of the consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch.
She has worked extensively on energy, food, water and environmental
issues at the national, state and local level. Experienced in developing
policy positions and legislative strategies, she is also a skilled and
accomplished organizer, having lobbied and developed grassroots field
strategy and action plans. Source: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/10-3

Big 6 pesticide corps want your vote

Campaign
disclosures released this week reaffirm one thing: pesticide and GE
seed companies are very focused on defeating Prop 37, the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.

In fact, a giant food lobby — which includes Monsanto as a member —
has declared that crushing the GE labeling ballot initiative is its "single highest priority" this fall.

Behind front groups and paid consultants, the “Big 6” pesticide
makers (BASF, Bayer, Dow, Dupont, Monsanto and Syngenta) have quietly
pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into the effort to kill GE
labeling, according to filings released
by California’s Secretary of State. These corporations have helped
garner over $1 million from several industry groups since January — most
importantly the Council for Biotechnology Information — whose
membership is (drum roll)...only the Big 6.

And industry opposition doesn’t just impact Californians. Several
states considered passing their own laws earlier this year, only to see
them quashed for fear of legal reprisal from Monsanto. Efforts to
institute federal labeling standards have been similarly stymied.

It’s no surprise that industry is fighting back hard. "The Big 6
chemical and seed companies are working diligently to monopolize the
food system at the expense of consumers, farmers and smaller seed
companies," said Philip H. Howard, an associate professor at Michigan State University and an expert on industry consolidation.

And Californians are already feeling the opposition to Proposition
37, with the election less than four months away. The Big 6 and their
front groups have started circulating a series of aggressive paid mailings, are lobbying political officials and have launched a concerted public relations offensive.

Pesticide industry’s business model at stake

For too long, pesticide and GE seed corporations have exerted undue
influence on our food system while making promises on which they fail to
deliver. With up to 80% of non-organic food on grocery store shelves
containing GE ingredients, the Big 6 aim to keep us in the dark as their
profit margins soar.

As the primary corporations controling the world’s pesticide and seed
markets, they enjoy the profits of a virtual monoply. They continue to
produce seeds that require more and more pesticide use — ensuring they
have a continued market for their products.

As a result, over 85% of the corn and soy in the U.S. — and half of
the corn and cotton in California — is genetically engineered to produce
its own pesticide or withstand increasing amounts of weedkillers. The
increased use of pesticides in agricultural fields puts rural
communities and farmworkers at the greatest risk of health harms due to
pesticide exposure.

“After over 15 years of commercialization, and millions of dollars in
publicly funded research, Big Ag has yet to deliver on the benefits it
has long promised farmers and consumers. Their costly seeds are designed
to require more pesticide use, not less,” said PAN’s senior scientist
Dr. Marcia Ishii-Eiteman.

US to Begin Part of Agent Orange Cleanup in Vietnam

Effort starts five decades after US unleashed warfare by toxic defoliant

- Common Dreams staff Published on Thursday, August 9, 2012 by Common Dreams

Fifty-one years after beginning a ten-year campaign of spraying
Agent Orange in Vietnam, the U.S. announced Thursday it will begin a
cleanup for the first time of just one of the 28 "hotspots" where the
Dow- and Monsanto-made toxic chemical was stored.

U.S. Huey helicopter spraying Agent Orange over Vietnam Voice of Americareports
that the four-year cleanup at a former U.S. airbase in Danang involves
"73,000 cubic meters of affected soil and heating it to a high
temperature to burn off leftover dioxin."

Up to 12 million gallons of the toxic defoliant was sprayed affecting millions of people and about 5 million acres of forest. It left a cruel, ongoing legacy of birth defects, cancer and other diseases for both Vietnamese and U.S. soldiers (2-4D, a component of Agent Orange is being sprayed on USA food crops after Round-Up
- glyphosate - herbicide formerly used was rendered ineffective by weed
resistance. This means much, much more spray, of much much deadlier
herbicide.....ON OUR FOOD-LAND-WATER-AIR! -Clean Food Earth Woman)

For millions of Vietnamese, the cleanup effort is too little, too late.

For the past 51 years, the Vietnamese people have been attempting to
address this legacy of war by trying to get the United States and the
chemical companies to accept responsibility for this ongoing nightmare.
An unsuccessful legal action by Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange
against the chemical companies in U.S. federal court, begun in 2004, has
nonetheless spawned a movement to hold the United States accountable
for using such dangerous chemicals on civilian populations. The movement
has resulted in pending legislation HR 2634 – The Victims of Agent
Orange Relief Act of 2011, which attempts to provide medical,
rehabilitative and social service compensation to the Vietnamese victims
of Agent Orange, remediation of dioxin-contaminated “hot spots,” and
medical services for the children and grandchildren of U. S. Vietnam
veterans and Vietnamese-Americans who have been born with the same
diseases and deformities.

Susan Schnall, a member of the Vietnam Agent Orange Relief and
Responsibility Campaign, a project of Veterans For Peace, urges action
on HR 2634:

"It's been 51 years since the beginning of the spraying, and the
first of 28 hot spots is now being dealt with. Hot spots are the areas
where the United States had military bases and left behind Agent Orange
dioxin which remains in the land. August 10th is Worldwide Agent Orange
Day, marking 51 years since the spraying started. So it's very
appropriate that the cleanup is beginning now. To ensure that the United
States continue this process with the remaining 27 hot spots, we're
asking people to support legislation that would clean up all 28 hot
spots: the Victims of Agent Orange Relief Act of 2011 (HR 2634). People
can go to our website http://vn-agentorange.org
and sign orange cards in support. This legislation also would provide
services to the children of both Vietnamese and Americans who are
suffering by the millions from the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam a
half-century ago. This is a reminder to the government and to the people
of the United States that war causes untold suffering that continues
with succeeding generations."

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Looking back to see ahead: One woman’s quest to bring back Native American food traditions

Valerie Segrest often encounters people who want her to tell them
what to eat. Instead, this native foods educator and registered member
of Washington state’s Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
says she works to “help people see the wealth of knowledge they come
from, and use that to make healthier choices.” It’s a doubly empowering
way to reconnect with cultural traditions and change food habits at the
same time.

When it comes to the diet-related health problems in native
communities, Segrest says, “you could take America and put it under a
microscope. That’s what’s happening on every reservation.” In other
words, diabetes rates are high, and access to healthy food — not to mention traditional foods — can be dicey at best.

The answer, Segrest believes, is a move toward the traditional
foodways that have slipped away from “a culture now consuming a diet
that is very superimposed.”

Segrest teaches a course at Northwest Indian College called “Honor
the Gift of Food,” which approaches healthy eating through eight traditional food principles
— ancient concepts that will be familiar to those who have heard them
reincarnated as foodie gospel: eat locally and seasonally; eat organic,
whole foods; honor the food web/chain; and, my favorite, “cook and eat
with good intention”:

Reflect on what you consume, as well as how you consume
your meals. Eating is a reminder that we are human … The way we eat is
just as important as what we eat. We are frequently eating while on the
go and hurrying on to the next task. This takes the pleasure out of
eating our food, and it does not allow sufficient time for our body to
relax enough to savor and digest, leaving us hungry for more.

Eating with intention also involves rethinking some of the
ethnocentric diet mantras drilled into us as Americans — for instance,
the idea that fat is anathema to good health. “In the Northwest,
traditional Coast Salish families would eat a lot of fat,” Segrest
explains. “It makes sense because the landscape here is rich with fish
and shellfish.” In her classes, Segrest differentiates between the
healthy fats that once made up close to half of Coast Salish people’s
daily nutrient intake, and the hydrogenated oils and trans fats
prevalent in the “superimposed” diet they consume now.

Segrest’s class explores practical ways to put traditional food
principles in a modern context, asking “How do I grocery shop with my
ancestors?” For instance, she explains, elk meat could be used in
lasagna instead of beef. The camas bulb,
a traditional prairie plant and native food staple, is hard to come by
now that so many of our prairies have disappeared, but white beans make a
good alternative.

Whatever your cultural background, this can be a more effective, and
often simpler, approach to healthy eating than trying to parse the
complex language of carbs, calories, and nutrition science. Across the
board, our ancestors generally ate better than we do, since they lived
before the advent of mass-market processed food.

In addition to teaching, Segrest has co-authored a book called Feeding the People, Feeding the Spirit: Revitalizing Northwest Coastal Indian Food Culture, and coordinates the broader Muckleshoot Food Sovereignty Project,
which incorporates educational and food-producing gardens, hands-on
workshops like a traditional technology series on fishing and hunting,
articles in the tribal newspaper, and traditional foods feasts. She is
also a Food and Community fellow at the Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy.

Segrest feels excited about the acceleration of the good food
movement, but points out that its focus on small farms and ranches often
leaves out native traditions. “We’re hunters and fishers,” she says.
“This new food system we’re trying to build — its abundance and its
scarcity depend on how we honor the old-world knowledge of this land. If
we want to create diverse diets we have to look at what was grown here
pre-contact.”

Changing her community’s relationship to food, Segrest says, means practicing “a way of living that presses us to look back.”

Worldwide Demand for Water Outstrips Supply: Study

Groundwater use is unsustainable in many of the world's major agricultural zones

- Common Dreams staff Published on Thursday, August 9, 2012 by Common Dreams

Degree to which aquifers important for farming are under stress. (Gleeson, T. et al.)Almost
one-quarter of the world’s population lives in regions where
groundwater is being used up faster than it can be replenished,
concludes a comprehensive global analysis of groundwater depletion, published this week in Nature.

The
world's oldest and largest acquifers, according to the study, have
supplied civilization with water for agricultural and industrial use for
thousands of years, but are now under threat from over-extraction and
the underground reservoirs can no longer replenish themselves at a
sustainable rate.

“This overuse can lead to decreased groundwater availability for both
drinking water and growing food,” says Tom Gleeson, a hydrogeologist at
McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, and lead author of the study.
Eventually, he adds, it “can lead to dried up streams and ecological
impacts”.

Gleeson said irrigation for agriculture drives much of the demand and
is the main driver for the fragility of the acquifers. According to the
study, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mexico, and the United
States lead the global pack of water-thirsty nations.

The researchers, from McGill University in
Montreal and Utrecht University in the Netherlands, combined groundwater
usage data from around the globe with computer models of underground
water resources to come up with a measure of water usage relative to
supply.

In addition, the scientists calculated how much stress each source of
groundwater is under and looked in detail at the water flows needed to
sustain the health of ecosystems such as grasses, trees and streams.

“To my knowledge, this is the first water-stress index that actually
accounts for preserving the health of the environment,” says Jay
Famiglietti, a hydrologist at the University of California, Irvine, who
was not involved in the study. “That’s a critical step.”

According to Reuters, "Gleeson said limits on
water extraction, more efficient irrigation and the promotion of
different diets, with less or no meat, could make these water resources
more sustainable."

UN Warns of 'Food Crisis' as Prices Continue Surge

Oxfam calls global food system "very sick" following latest numbers

A sharp increase of food prices on the international market,
mostly driven by a surge in grain and sugar prices, has spurred the UN's
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) to issue a warning that a food crisis similar to the one experience in 2008 could be on the horizon if proper action is not taken.

A man looks at food at Khartoum's central food market July 18, 2012. (Credit: Reuters/ Mohamed Nureldin Abdallah) The FAO Food Price Index
climbed 6 percent in July 2012 after three months of previous decline
and indicates that the extreme drought ravaging US croplands and a
similar failure in India and elsewhere is having a severe impact food
costs.

"There is potential for a situation to develop
like we had back in 2007/08," the FAO's senior economist and grain
analyst Abdolreza Abbassian told Reuters.

"There is an expectation that this time around
we will not pursue bad policies and intervene in the market by
restrictions, and if that doesn't happen we will not see such a serious
situation as 2007/08. But if those policies get repeated, anything is
possible."

Reuters explains that in 2007/08, a "number
of major producers imposed various restrictions on exports in an attempt
to control domestic prices" and that export bans, quotas, and higher
tariffs on rice, corn and wheat caused market reductions which led to
soaring prices.

Aid groups met the new FAO numbers with
dismay, but not surprise, calling the FAO index numbers a symptom of a
'very sick' global food system.

“This is not some gentle monthly wake-up call," said
Colin Roche, a spokesperson for Oxfam International. "It’s the same
global alarm that’s been screaming at us since 2008. These new figures
prove that the world’s food system cannot cope on crumbling foundations.
The combination of rising prices and expected low reserves means the
world is facing a double danger."

Roche warned that without action millions more would join the billion
people who are already hungry in the world and said that the
agricultural policies of the world's wealthiest nations were as much to
blame for the impending crisis as anything.

Members of the G-20, said Roche, must "reverse decades of
under-investment into small-holder agriculture. The US and EU must ditch
their crazy biofuels programs that turn 40% of US corn, for example,
into gas for cars and trucks. We must tackle the causes and effects of
climate change that will eventually, without action, overwhelm our food
system entirely."

"These price hikes are being driven by more than just a drought in the
US corn-belt and problem harvests elsewhere. As bad as they are, our
food system should be more resilient than this," Roche said.

Corporations Sneak Synthetic Preservatives into Organic Food

Organic Watchdog Files Formal Legal Complaint with USDA

WASHINGTON - August 9 - The Cornucopia Institute, a not-for-profit
policy research organization based in Wisconsin, filed a formal legal
complaint with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
against several infant formula manufacturers that are adding two
synthetic preservatives to certified organic infant formula.The Organic Foods Production Act, passed by Congress in 1990, explicitly bans synthetic preservatives in organic food.
“This is another blatant violation of the federal law governing
organics by multi-billion dollar corporations that apparently think they
can get away with anything,” says Charlotte Vallaeys, Director of Farm
and Food Policy at The Cornucopia Institute.
The preservatives are beta carotene and ascorbyl palmitate,
synthetics that are added to infant formula to prevent the oxidation and
rancidity of ingredients such as the controversial patented supplements
DHA and ARA, manufactured by Martek Biosciences Corporation (Royal DSM)
and marketed as Life'sDHA®.
“This is not the first time that the pharmaceutical companies and
agribusinesses, that manufacture infant formula, have quietly added to
organic formula the same synthetic ingredients that they use in their
conventional versions without first seeking the legally required
approval for use in organics,” says Vallaeys.
According to The Cornucopia Institute, there have been more than a
dozen unapproved synthetic ingredients that have been added to organic
infant formula over the past five years. The public interest group has
filed numerous legal complaints with the USDA, asking for removal of
unapproved synthetic ingredients like the DHA algal oil and ARA fungal
oils, manufactured by Martek, which was recently acquired by the Dutch
conglomerate Royal DSM.
While the USDA has admitted publicly
that these synthetics were added to organics due to an erroneous
interpretation by previous USDA leadership, the agency, after being
pressured by industry, has refused to take enforcement action and pull
the suspect products from store shelves.
The DSM/Martek DHA and ARA oils, labeled on infant formula as “c.
cohnii oil” and “m. alpina oil,” have been controversial since the
preponderance of scientific published research concluded that they do
not benefit infant development. “These ingredients, which now appear to
require additional synthetics as preservatives, amount to a gimmicky and
risky marketing ploy,” added Vallaeys.
When formula with Life'sDHA® first came on the market, the FDA
received numerous adverse reaction reports from parents and healthcare
providers who noted serious gastrointestinal symptoms in babies who had
previously tolerated formula without the Martek DHA and ARA oils.
Synthetic beta carotene and ascorbyl palmitate, according to the
International Formula Council (the industry’s trade-lobby group),
contribute no nutritional value to infant formula, but rather serve to
prevent oxidation and rancidity.Organic standards
require that a synthetic ingredient cannot qualify for use in organic
foods if its primary purpose is as a preservative. The International
Formula Council, which is now petitioning the USDA to legalize the use
of these synthetic materials in organics, never uses the word
"preservative" to describe synthetic beta carotene and ascorbyl
palmitate. They instead use terms like “antioxidant” to “prevent
undesirable oxidation” and “prevent rancidity” in “powder formulations
containing DHA and ARA.”
The federal organic standards also require that synthetics be allowed in organic foods only if they are deemed essential.
“The only reason why these two synthetic preservatives are added to
infant formula is to prevent the rancidity of some of the other
synthetic ingredients that are not essential and have also been added
illegally,” says Vallaeys. “This is a slippery slope, and we urge the
USDA to take appropriate enforcement action and put an end to the
practice of first adding synthetic additives to organic food, including
infant formula, and then seeking subsequent approval.”
In its complaint, Cornucopia also asked the USDA to investigate the
formula manufacturers’ organic certifying agent, Quality Assurance
International (QAI). QAI is one of the largest organic certifying
agents, and has come under fire in the past for certifying organic
livestock operations that failed to meet the organic standards for
animal welfare and outdoor access. QAI has also allowed its clients to
add a number of other allegedly illegal synthetic ingredients to organic
food and livestock feed.
The Cornucopia Institute refers to QAI as, "the corporate certifier of convenience."
“Consumers should be able to trust that the organic label represents
foods that are free from unnecessary synthetic ingredients, and they
rely on third-party certification by USDA-accredited certifying agents,”
says Mark Kastel, Codirector of The Cornucopia Institute.
“But that system breaks down when certifiers like QAI allow their
clients to add unreviewed and unapproved synthetic ingredients and when
the USDA, when faced with industry pressure, fails to carry out its
enforcement duties.”
MORE:
A buyer’s guide
to avoiding organic foods with DAM/Martek’s DHA algal oil and ARA
fungal oil, including foods aimed at adults and children, like Horizon
milk (manufactured by Dean Foods), is available on The Cornucopia
Institute’s website.
The Cornucopia Institute named the following brands of organic infant
formula in its complaint to the USDA: Earth’s Best, Similac Organic,
Vermont Organics, Bright Beginnings and Parent’s Choice (sold by
Walmart).
Similac Organic is produced by Abbott Laboratories, a $30 billion
pharmaceutical corporation. The other brands are produced by PBM
Nutritionals, owned by Perrigo, a $2 billion dollar pharmaceutical
corporation.
The only commercially available baby formula available in US stores
that does not contain these synthetic preservatives is Baby’s Only
Organic, manufactured by Nature’s One. Baby’s Only Organic is certified
organic by OneCert.
A comprehensive report, Replacing Mother—Imitating Human Breast Milk in the Laboratory, is also available on the Cornucopia site.

The Cornucopia
Institute,
a Wisconsin-based nonprofit farm policy research
group, is
dedicated to the fight
for economic justice for the family-scale farming community. Their Organic
Integrity Project acts as a corporate and
governmental watchdog assuring that no compromises to the credibility of
organic farming methods and the food it produces are made in the pursuit
of
profit. Their web page can be viewed at www.cornucopia.org.